dodgebaena: I'm getting a boner with this one…. the IS seals the deal for me. Basically, I want a mirrorless version of the a99, and with the IS, my dream is fulfilled.
I'm the only one in my circle of wedding photographers here in TO who uses the Sony a99. Now it looks like I'l be using the A72 next year.
vesa1tahti: No time lapse, no bulb = useless
Bulb is for exposures longer than the 30sec "minimum". DPR's review may be incorrect if they say there is no Bulb setting. Bulb is a must-have.
I'm getting a boner with this one…. the IS seals the deal for me. Basically, I want a mirrorless version of the a99, and with the IS, my dream is fulfilled.
when the howling mob takes over the presidential palace, this will be one of the items found
Kirk Tuck: The RX10 (which I have owned for several months) is a very, very good video camera. The still images are good but the video is great and the ability to have a lens that's par focal (that doesn't change focus as you zoom) and constant aperture (doesn't change aperture as you zoom) means that you can use this camera for serious video production.
It's different than all those cameras listed below because it doesn't do line skipping in video it reads out the whole frame. This makes its final video output much sharper and more detailed than any of those. It's worth the cash IF you do video with it. Zebras, focus peaking, audio control. It's just a nearly perfect budget video machine. That's why people buy it.
Hi Kirk,Your opinion seals the deal for me: I will be getting the RX10. The video from my a99 is a you say, "mush" and it's a pain esp when I am combining it with clips from my Sony NX30.
anytime a company goes public, it begs the question: if the going is very good, why don't you keep it all to yourself? or to a select group of venture capitalists? what keeps a Sony or a Samsung with a varied product line coming in and saturating the market with what is clearly a niche product for the big players.
thanks to focus peaking, I am quite comfortable shooting my Bower (a Samyang lens) 85f1.4 on my a99. This will be a nice walk-around lens for my NEX-6.
If it were affordable, I'd get one. I still have my Nikon primes, plus a few other exotic ones like a Medical Nikkor. One of my sharpest lenses is a Nikkor 28f3.5. I'm a Sony (a99) user now but I'd get the chrome Df in a heartbeat if it fell below $1500.
Jimmy jang Boo: DSLRs are going the way of the dodo bird.
"Not for Pros"??? My wedding and event photography colleagues envy my Sony a99 and if not for their huge investment in L lenses, they would switch from their 5D3 to the Sony/Zeiss system.
georgehudetz: On the surface, I love the concept - a FF camera nearly 400 grams lighter than a D610. Fantastic! But am I the only one that thinks this is a bit of a shell game? With a CIPA battery life of only 340 shots, vs. the Nikon's 900, I'd be investing in a battery grip for the Sony just to keep the battery swapping down. Then you'd still want one or two more batteries on hand in addition to the two in the camera for a full day's shooting. It looks like most of the weight advantage goes away. Same issue applies when comparing a D7100 to a OMD-EM1 (although of course the lenses are a different issue in that comparison).
But I suppose if you didn't mind swapping and went without the grip you'd still have a significant weight advantage. Bravo to Sony for innovating! I love my D7000 but Nikon needs to pay attention here!
I agree with Najinsky. The batteries on my a99 is rated for less than 500 but when I shoot weddings, using a grip, I can get approx 2600 shots out of 3 batteries. Using a grip allows me to deplete a battery down to 0%. I use 2 sec auto review and I use the screen over 50% of the time to compose my shots. I don't chimp too much and I onl yturn on the camera when I'm ready to shoot.
ThomasSwitzerland: If you rent SW you lose control forever. Take online access for surfing only, reading news, simple mail; and keep your files hooked off. Convert your pictures with excellent camera vendor’s SW into TIFFs. Afterwards there are many “out of the box” choices.
The internet as we know it today will be dead in a couple of years. Adobe per now does not belong to this new road - just confirming old fashioned greed and corporate incompetence. Gets kicked out.
I agree with ThomasSwitzerland. Somebody very soon will figure out a way to monetize the use of the internet.
continued from below:... heck, I do it all the time, tying my pro-bono work for publicity generated by the goodwill, not to mention attracting potential clients. It's a win-win situation (instead of a tax break, I get good vibes and free publicity) but I don't go around with a halo on my head (okay, perhaps other people are installing the hallo around you) and saying it's all for the poor people, because using an iPhone to shoot a wedding is a huge disservice to any client, paying or otherwise.Look, the perception may be, may be not, different from the reality, and as long as the poor people are happy, where's the problem? But we know, the Connect readers know, and sometimes, the intent is everything. And misrepresenting it is everything.
Kevin,It would have been a different story if you had done it this way:"Out of the goodness of my heart, and my desire to share my talent and expertise with others less fortunate, I will undertake this project, using the best affordable equipment (read: anything other than a any smartphone) to do justice to the significance o this event. In addition, just like so many other nameless people and organizations, I will do this without publicizing it, keeping in mind that this good deed is a reward in itself."Instead, you go ahead and use equipment totally not suited for a wedding, any wedding, and while you profess helplessness in the uncontrollable publicity machine, you can't be really seen as putting a stop to it. Your passive-aggressive, sanctimonious holier-than-thou attitude is what is generating this firestorm. It is not the event itself that is drawing criticism. Look, I admire what you do, warts and all, and I most likely would do the same thing ...to be continued
Mike Walters: Don't know what all the fuss is about. Mobile photography has been around for years. My DSLR is mobile, compact cameras are mobile, phones with cameras are mobile.
It would take courage if the photographer was not a big name photographer, was not published and was trying to make a business out of wedding photography.
Its all about using the right tools for the job. Nothing wrong with using a phone if thats what you decide is the right tool for the job. I am pretty sure that 99.9% of wedding photographers wouldnt take the chance of using a mobile phone as their only tool to photograph a wedding, which just about says it all I think.
So true.... when the 35mm Leica came out, it was looked down on as not as good as the square format... and it was "mobile", relatively speaking.
topstuff: Nice camera. Lovely image quality. Loads of lenses available.
In many ways it is a "no brainer" and an obviously safe purchase.
But here's the thing - and I know this is unusual here on DPR, but these days I prefer using an EVF. I prefer the EVF because I don't chimp after the image, but instead get it right before I shoot.
For ME at least, I don't think I am likely to buy another traditional mirrored DSLR again.
I would personally welcome seeing more FF cameras with EVF's.
An unusual opinion maybe, but some of us prefer the road less travelled.
I switched from the 5D/5D2 to the Sony SLTsparticularly for both the EVF and the hinge monitor. My mouth waters when I see the specs on the current ful frames from both Canon and Nikon, esp since the autofocus is a huge improv over the 5D2. But I need that EVF.
Rage Joe: Hate that cheap, overdone vignetting filter used in attempt to hide the really poor quality of the pictures.
If you want atmospheric images, go with the iPhone and its filters. I do and I have over 500 pics on my blog to show for it. If you want literal, faithful-to-what the eye sees, go with Regular digital pics. If I were a wedding client, I would ask primarily for regular and have the option of going atmospheric. But then beggars can't be choosers, and I mean that in a sympathetic way, so an iPhone regimen is imposed on them. I like my iPhone pics but for this wedding, a healthy mix would have been great... And there is no shortage of local volunteers to do it.
Kim,It's unfortunate that the good work/intentions of the Missionaries are buried under the technobabble. But then again, this forum is with dpreview, not with UTNE.I personally am judgemental because unless the Connect article is skipping some specifics as to funding and who gets what, this event reeks of grandstanding and commercialism. It's like a Western company gives the island population $5,000: a huge fortune over there for medicine and infrastructure. Great! The problem comes when the the rights to these photos generate ten times or more for the "sponsor". Huge problem as far as copyrights issues and fair play.
tkbslc: "Kuster believes that iPhone photography allows portrait subjects to let their guard down becuase they are not looking at an intimidating DSLR."
So why not use an LX7 or rx100 or something? Even a GX1 with a 20mm f1.7. The iphone offers nothing special in this regard.
If he has the talent for shooting weddings and events (as opposed to paid models in a studio), he should be able to capture the essence of his subject with any camera.We're also assuming that his subjects are techno-illiterate. I don't think they are. I've been to places in the Philippines without indoor plumbing, regular garbage collection, and intermmittent electrical power supply where the population was more technically savvy than your average Westerner. Same is true for materially-poor places in Vietnam, Thailand, etc. This is more Western voyeurism of the poor.
Here are some ideas: for a fraction of the cost of flying in Mr. Kuster, hire a local photographer... there's a whole bunch of talented people in the area.auction the idea to Samsung, Nokia, Blackberry, Apple for donations/funding/sponsorship/goodwill for cold hard cash. Winners gets to have their phone used.bind Mr. Kuster to a contract that any profits from books and spin-offs go back to the models, the people on the island. For all the good intentions the participants may have (or lack), my perception is that this is more, and I can't get the phrase in my head, like Western voyeurism of the poor, and this is not unique in the history of photography.